NASA secret files

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, maybe your faith in Dr. Greer is misplaced.
Tell me, in your universe, how can somebody see lunar farside photographs in 'mid-1965' that weren't even MADE until mid-1967?
So much for Greer's 'vetting', and your misplaced faith in it.
QED.

Am I to understand that, once again, your answer to my question is a question about the credibility of Sgt. Wolf? Even in the hypothetical universe I described in which he had been fully vetted, you can't provide a straight answer? Amazing. As for your claims about the timing of photography from the lunar orbiter, your claim has no merit as you have simply made a statement without providing any evidence to back it. I am done with you sir. You are most certainly NOT a scientist, and your debunking agenda has been made apparent.

Originally posted by JimOberg
JimO adds: "The Apollo sites were all on the Earth-facing side of the Moon; during these photo sessions, the opposite side was dark. After the primary mission requirements were satisifed, the 4th and 5th missions were tasked with full moon imaging."

LOL wait... so your evidence that the back side of the moon wasn't photographed until late 1967 is your own statement that the back side of the moon wasn't photographed until late 1967? LMAO

Originally posted by draco49

I wasn't referring to the perceived circular formation of points of light. Start this vid at 3:33 and watch til the end.

Definitely an unearthly scene -- you'd have a hard time duplicating the illumination conditions on Earth.

So it's no problem that it looks baffling if you rely on earthside interpretation models.

To understand what could be happening with stuff 'appearing' in mid-field, you have to appreciate where the sunlit and shadowed regions are right out in front of the camera line of sight. That's what I spent several FAQs addressing.

It's why I [and Musgrave] interpret such scenes as showing small drifting shuttle-shed dandruff emerging from the shuttle's shadow.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, maybe your faith in Dr. Greer is misplaced.
Tell me, in your universe, how can somebody see lunar farside photographs in 'mid-1965' that weren't even MADE until mid-1967?
So much for Greer's 'vetting', and your misplaced faith in it.
QED.

Am I to understand that, once again, your answer to my question is a question about the credibility of Sgt. Wolf? Even in the hypothetical universe I described in which he had been fully vetted, you can't provide a straight answer? Amazing. As for your claims about the timing of photography from the lunar orbiter, your claim has no merit as you have simply made a statement without providing any evidence to back it. I am done with you sir. You are most certainly NOT a scientist, and your debunking agenda has been made apparent.

Since the historical documentation proves that the Lunar Orbiter probes did not start taking lunar farside photos until May 1967, the claim by Wolf that he personally SAW such photographs in mid-1965, is pretty throroughly demolished. It was YOU who insisted that the 'mid-1965' claim should be accepted as having been verified. I was willing to give a little wiggle room. But no, you were so sure Greer had checked it out properly...

Is there any other way to interpret these documented facts?

Yes, I can understand why you might think it's a tail-between-the-legs snarling retreat time. Make this a teachable moment and come back wiser.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by JimOberg
Well, maybe your faith in Dr. Greer is misplaced.
Tell me, in your universe, how can somebody see lunar farside photographs in 'mid-1965' that weren't even MADE until mid-1967?
So much for Greer's 'vetting', and your misplaced faith in it.
QED.

Am I to understand that, once again, your answer to my question is a question about the credibility of Sgt. Wolf? Even in the hypothetical universe I described in which he had been fully vetted, you can't provide a straight answer? Amazing. As for your claims about the timing of photography from the lunar orbiter, your claim has no merit as you have simply made a statement without providing any evidence to back it. I am done with you sir. You are most certainly NOT a scientist, and your debunking agenda has been made apparent.

What the? 1965 is not 1967. Things that take place for the first time in 1967 don't take place in 1965. You are an evil man mr oberg.

reply to post by draco49


Try checking the research:

LOL wait... so your evidence that the back side of the moon wasn't photographed until late 1967 is your own statement that the back side of the moon wasn't photographed until late 1967?

The "1967" date refers to NASA equipment and missions.

The USSR had imaged the far side before.....but of course, those pictures were not made available to the West until, coincidentally, 1967! (And, that is only *IF* the photos, once released inside the Soviet Union, were somehow obtained through espionage sources, and brought out):

In 1967 the second part of the "Atlas of the Far Side of the Moon" was published in Moscow, based on data from Zond 3, with the catalog now including 4,000 newly discovered features of lunar far side landscape. In the same year the first "Complete Map of the Moon" (1:5 000 000 scale) and updated complete globe (1:10 000 000 scale), featuring 95 percent of the lunar surface[11] were released in the Soviet Union.

Source


Unless someone wishes to make the *claim* that Karl Wolf could have had access to any Soviet Moon photos in 1965? His credibility is therefore suspect.

Oh, and here: The NASA Lunar Orbiter missions, 1 through 5:

Lunar Orbiter (1966 - 1967)

Note above ( ^ ^ ^ ) regarding Lunar Orbiter 4 and 5:

Lunar Orbiter 4 photographed the entire nearside and 95% of the farside, and Lunar Orbiter 5 completed the farside coverage and acquired medium (20 m) and high (2 m) resolution images of 36 pre-selected areas.

Orbiter 4 in May, 1967.

Orbiter 5 in August 1967.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Definitely an unearthly scene -- you'd have a hard time duplicating the illumination conditions on Earth.

So it's no problem that it looks baffling if you rely on earthside interpretation models.

To understand what could be happening with stuff 'appearing' in mid-field, you have to appreciate where the sunlit and shadowed regions are right out in front of the camera line of sight. That's what I spent several FAQs addressing.

It's why I [and Musgrave] interpret such scenes as showing small drifting shuttle-shed dandruff emerging from the shuttle's shadow.

Stop piggy-backing on Musgrave. He's not here to participate, and using him to co-sign to what you're saying is inappropriate.

I've read your FAQs, and I don't believe that any of them adequately explain the phenomena seen in the STS-80 footage I referenced. What you're basically telling me is that, in space, the only thing that our cameras can accurately capture is the Earth, and the two or three inches of shuttle exterior we sometimes see in the frame corners. Everything else is a lighting aberration, ice particle, or piece of shuttle debris.

Originally posted by PluPerfect
Unless someone wishes to make the *claim* that Karl Wolf could have had access to any Soviet Moon photos in 1965? His credibility is therefore suspect.

Jim, let's be honest with each other. You're a NASA lackey on a conspiracy theory website, and your sole function here is to tirelessly debunk aerial phenomenon that doesn't fit in the public NASA POV. If anyone's credibility is suspect, it's yours.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
As a fellow layperson, I would say this is easily explainable. It is absolutely 100% due to the way our brain processes imagery. If you look at the "circle" there is no circle to be found. Nota. none. nothing that looks anything like a circle is actually there. What IS there are some points of light. The illusion of a circle is there, but no actual circle. there are some points of light that are brighter than others. How big are they? how far away are they? Our very own brain chooses to ignore some points that are there and just as defined as any other point of light because they don't contribute to the circle illusion.

I wasn't referring to the perceived circular formation of points of light. Start this vid at 3:33 and watch til the end.

I tried watching, I honestly did. with all my knoweldge of orbs and orb like things...and stuff in space that resemble orbs...I have no clue what I am supposed to look for.

Can someone edit this up and put some cool music during the cool parts to accentuate the weird stuff that is supposed to be alien orbs? I mean really.

reply to post by draco49


My name is not "Jim":

Jim, let's be honest with each other....

You replied to the wrong individual. However, I find it rather amusing whenever rational and sane alternatives to wishful thinking are presented, and then the sanity is attacked as a "lackey" or a "dis-info"....merely because a cherished *belief* is shown to be incorrect, by solid science and demonstration. Especially when a person who is well-known and accomplished is posting under their real name, and can be verified and vetted quite easily.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Since the historical documentation proves that the Lunar Orbiter probes did not start taking lunar farside photos until May 1967, the claim by Wolf that he personally SAW such photographs in mid-1965, is pretty throroughly demolished. It was YOU who insisted that the 'mid-1965' claim should be accepted as having been verified. I was willing to give a little wiggle room. But no, you were so sure Greer had checked it out properly...

Now you're just telling outright lies. I never insisted that Greer was competent to vet Sgt. Wolf, or even that he did. Since you're memory is obviously getting a little hazy in your old age, here's exactly what I said:

With the acknowledgement that second-hand corroboration doesn't carry the same weight as first-hand vetting, it is my understanding that Sgt. Wolf was vetted by Dr. Stephen Greer with the disclosure project, as were all of the other witnesses he assembled for that conference.

Also, I'm not the one who claimed anything. You and Sgt. Wolf are the one's making claims. All I'm doing is asking questions. You're the one who's evading the questions, and providing misleading and discrediting information about someone you don't even know (Sgt. Wolf).

Yes, I can understand why you might think it's a tail-between-the-legs snarling retreat time. Make this a teachable moment and come back wiser.

You really are an arrogant one. If anything, you've taught me that NASA and it's consultants are incompetent liars. You've also negated any notion I may have had that NASA is a reputable organization.

Originally posted by draco49

Originally posted by PluPerfect
Unless someone wishes to make the *claim* that Karl Wolf could have had access to any Soviet Moon photos in 1965? His credibility is therefore suspect.

Jim, let's be honest with each other. You're a NASA lackey on a conspiracy theory website, and your sole function here is to tirelessly debunk aerial phenomenon that doesn't fit in the public NASA POV. If anyone's credibility is suspect, it's yours.

Not Carl Wolf's? You brought him up. You insisted his claim of "mid-1965" should be accepted as valid. Do you think I forged the Lunar Orbiter history websites?

You couldn't have read the 99-FAQs, especially where I proudly boasted of being on NASA's s--t list for uncovering their own embarrassing secret screw-ups. I testified before Congress in 1997 about their screwed-up safety culture, and burned my bridges to my 'day job' by so doing -- but still couldn't save the lives of the 'Columbia' crew. So take your 'lackey' remark, and let us all giggle over it.

I think it's clear to most readers here where this dispute has ended up.

Originally posted by PluPerfect
You replied to the wrong individual. However, I find it rather amusing whenever rational and sane alternatives to wishful thinking are presented, and then the sanity is attacked as a "lackey" or a "dis-info"....merely because a cherished *belief* is shown to be incorrect, by solid science and demonstration. Especially when a person who is well-known and accomplished is posting under their real name, and can be verified and vetted quite easily.

Sorry for the mixed-up response. But you seem to be on board with Jim, so same difference. I don't know how much more clear I can make this. I DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA, nor have I reached any conclusions about anything. All I've done is ask questions. Why is it that debunkers are ALWAYS on the attack, and ALWAYS assume that someone asking questions is locked into some delusional alternate reality?

I have already acknowledged MR. Oberg's knowledge and experience in the field. However, expertise says nothing of his credibility. He is a confirmed DEBUNKER. Even after NASA bounced him off the project to rebut the stupid Apollo conspiracy, he publicly stated that intended to continue the project on his own. Look him up... everything he's been involved in has had to do with debunking UFO theories. Smart man, not credible.

Originally posted by JimOberg
Not Carl Wolf's? You brought him up. You insisted his claim of "mid-1965" should be accepted as valid. Do you think I forged the Lunar Orbiter history websites?

I brought up Wolf because I thought his story was interesting, and since you're a NASA bigwig, I figured you'd be a good person to ask. I never claimed to believe his story or support his claims. Show me one place where I insisted that his claims be accepted as valid. What I did say, in response to your attempt at diverting the question, was to hypothetically assume for the sake of argument that his credentials and background checked out. Maybe you should spend more time reading what is actually said, and less time riding the coattails of Story Musgrave.

You couldn't have read the 99-FAQs, especially where I proudly boasted of being on NASA's s--t list for uncovering their own embarrassing secret screw-ups. I testified before Congress in 1997 about their screwed-up safety culture, and burned my bridges to my 'day job' by so doing -- but still couldn't save the lives of the 'Columbia' crew. So take your 'lackey' remark, and let us all giggle over it.

Yes, I rad the FAQs. Even your self-serving portrayals as a space renegade in the NASA machine. But you're right. You're not a NASA lackey... you WERE a NASA lackey.

I DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA, nor have I reached any conclusions about anything.

Your agenda could be to discredit the evil mr. oberg...what agency do you work for?

I have already acknowledged MR. Oberg's knowledge and experience in the field. However, expertise says nothing of his credibility. He is a confirmed DEBUNKER. Even after NASA bounced him off the project to rebut the stupid Apollo conspiracy, he publicly stated that intended to continue the project on his own. Look him up... everything he's been involved in has had to do with debunking UFO theories.

Conclusion?

Smart man, not credible.

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
Your agenda could be to discredit the evil mr. oberg...what agency do you work for?

LOL I don't need to discredit the man; he's discredited himself. And I certainly don't think he's evil... I just think he's spent so much of his life on a debunking mission that he's forgotten how to live any other way. I do think it would cool to see him and Hoagland in a cage fight. Also, I don't work for an agency, I'm a private contractor.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by SpearMint

 

...no proof?

Well...I say it's aliens...prove me wrong

Sorry buddy tyhe burdenofproof ison you. Nasa has explain 'glitches' prettywell. As much as iwantto believe aliens are here and watching us i fill like there probably not here

reply to post by draco49

He is a confirmed DEBUNKER. Even after NASA bounced him off the project to rebut the stupid Apollo conspiracy....

"Onboard" with Mr. Oberg, you say? (puz)

No, I happen to be able to differentiate from the claim that was the basis for this thread ("NASA secret files") and reality. Has nothing to do with Mr. Oberg, except inasmuch as he (along with many other informed individuals) can see through the rhetoric that seems to spout from the "true believers" --- those who will not see facts, but instead insist in remaining stuck in a realm of fantasy *beliefs*.

The so-called "tether incident" has been thoroughly discussed, as there have been many years gone by since that STS mission. However, it seems that every so often it is "discovered" by someone who had never encountered it before....usually from an accidental stumble on YouTube, or elsewhere on the Internet....(since, nothing ever goes away, even when discredited, from the Interwebz...).


Now, onto that cryptic reference, above: (Hence the "(puz)").

The one about the ".....NASA bounced him off the project to rebut the stupid Apollo conspiracy...."

I do hope you mean the ridiculous claims that Apollo was "hoaxed"?

But, your representation of events (specifically, the term "bounced him off the project") is both rhetorical, and unnecessarily laden with a somewhat skewed view of events.

Here, a snippet of narrative that is more accurate to the way the "project" transpired:

Oberg and Jacobs said the intent of the book project was never to directly engage those who believe that moon landings were staged in the desert outside some secret military bunker or filmed in a Hollywood studio.

"I was just going to bring out more of the amazing truths about our space activities, talk to the people involved, and show the public how they can think for themselves and check these things that they hear," said Oberg, 56.

"NASA said the publicity had just gotten too distracting," Oberg said, "and I also suspect they are afraid that Congress would get on their case about spending the money or paying attention to silliness like this. I was dismayed and I was disappointed."

Jacobs last week denied that the space agency was pressured to kill the project, but he said the media attention in recent weeks has distracted from more important things, not the least of which are this week's scheduled shuttle launch and NASA's annual budget scramble before Congress.

Houston Chronicle Arrchives

Originally posted by PluPerfect
No, I happen to be able to differentiate from the claim that was the basis for this thread ("NASA secret files") and reality. Has nothing to do with Mr. Oberg, except inasmuch as he (along with many other informed individuals) can see through the rhetoric that seems to spout from the "true believers" --- those who will not see facts, but instead insist in remaining stuck in a realm of fantasy *beliefs*

That's great and all, but you you still haven't grasped the concept that I am not a "true believer" in a fantasy realm. I bring no conclusions to the table, only questions. Questions that MR. Oberg artfully navigates without providing an answer.

The so-called "tether incident" has been thoroughly discussed, as there have been many years gone by since that STS mission. However, it seems that every so often it is "discovered" by someone who had never encountered it before....usually from an accidental stumble on YouTube, or elsewhere on the Internet....(since, nothing ever goes away, even when discredited, from the Interwebz...).

I didn't say anything about the tether incident.

Now, onto that cryptic reference, above: (Hence the "(puz)").

The one about the ".....NASA bounced him off the project to rebut the stupid Apollo conspiracy...."

I do hope you mean the ridiculous claims that Apollo was "hoaxed"?

Yes, I am referring to the ridiculous fake moon landing conspiracy.

They look alive!
could aliens have made a body that lives in space?
and a mind that moves engy?